Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Obama Could Have Been Great

I do worry that this sort of idea, that Obama has failed in fixing a floundering economy was at least 10 to 12 years in the making after only four months, will take hold.

And it probably will. For one thing, it is easier to have this one man to blame than to try to sort out the sordid details of what really brought this to our door. There have been countless Planet Money podcasts and at least two whole This American Life broadcasts dedicated to figuring out what went wrong when, and who is to blame for it all. I haven't listened to Josh and Chuck's (the guys from the Stuff You Should Know podcast) Super Stuffed Guide to the Economy, but I'm guessing that aside from being awesome they offer the same type of complex and villainless piece. They really haven't discovered the golden nugget of truth that would place the blame directly at anyone's feet, which is good. But without a concrete, mustache-having, black-cape-wearing, malicious villain, it's easier to point to the guy at the top - the guy who wasn't at the top through those past ten or so years (not that I think he would have done anything differently, just that he didn't have the opportunity to even do the same thing) - and say, "It's him!"

It might work. But right now, with the Right floundering and attacking pretty much everyone without cause or even a fully formed strategy, I'm holding out hope that it backfires terribly. Especially with Cheney skulking around claiming that Bush left the GM mess to the next guy.

31 comments:

If Gingrich’s was trying to say that that Obama’s entire presidency has failed, that’s more than a little ridiculous. But I didn’t watch the speech, so I don’t know if that’s what Gingrich was arguing. From the sound bites, it seemed like he was arguing that the administration’s economic policies have failed to produce the promised results – and may have even made things worse.

I think it’s definitely fair to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan has, so far, failed to achieve anything like the outcome that the administration predicted. Their baseline unemployment projection – what the economy was supposed to look like without the stimulus plan – peaked at 9 percent. We’re now at 9.4 percent unemployment and rising. Obama is insisting that the stimulus has “saved or created” 4 million jobs, but there is absolutely no way to prove that, and the administration’s own numbers suggest otherwise. As many critics have pointed out, there are only a few ways to read this situation: a) the stimulus has failed, b) the administration has failed to properly implement the stimulus, or c) the administration’s baseline projection was seriously flawed, which means that their econometric models are seriously flawed.

To me, it’s much more absurd for the administration to claim – as it has – that the stimulus “succeeded.” If you really think that it’s too early to tell, don’t they deserve some criticism, too?

To me, it’s much more absurd for the administration to claim – as it has – that the stimulus “succeeded.” If you really think that it’s too early to tell, don’t they deserve some criticism, too?

I'm reserving judgement - all judgement, good and negative - on economic matters regarding the success or failure of the plan because it has only been four months and the likelihood of actual, quantitative (or even qualitative) success after four months is a fairly ridiculous expectation. A number of states haven't even received stimulus money yet, and so to declare the project as failed when it has barely gotten started is on its face a complete stretch of the available data. Also, to declare the whole thing a success would also be ridiculous, and I would have equal problem with that.

I think that there can be reasonable criticism of the implementation. I think there can be reasonable criticism of what the Obama Administration views as the underlying problems of the recession. My guy Bill Moyers (I love him) has had several guests who have criticised the Obama Administration's plan of attack for economic stability since the plan was first introduced. I'm all for that kind of criticism of the plan - from both the Left and the Right. I'm more than fine with Gingrich saying that he doesn't believe the plan Obama has put forth will work for reasons X, Y, & Z (though I'm not fine, as I've said before, with people - from the Right or Left - hoping for Obama and his plan to fail [not that Gingrich has; that was just a qualifying remark]).

But to declare that it hasn't worked - that it has failed - is just insane given the timeline. I have heard more of the speech than the soundbites, and I understand that it was given to an entirely Republican crowd for the purpose of fundraising. But still, the types of attacks coming from the Right and the GOP have been, as of late, at the very least hyperbolic and at some point just complete bullshit. And this is one that strattles that line.

But when will we know whether the stimulus worked? How can we gauge success?

If we look at the administration's baseline scenario, the stimulus has already failed.

The administration now argues that its baseline was wrong - the recession was worse than they expected.

That's probably true, but where does that leave us? We'll never know what things would've looked like without the stimulus. The administration can now claim success no matter how bad the economy gets.

And that's exactly what's happening. The administration is relying on econometric models that assume a certain multiplier effect from the stimulus. They're also relying on dubious anecdotal evidence to make their case.

Unfortunately, none of this proves anything. The real empirical question is whether there is a multiplier effect. Is it fair for the administration to simply assume - whatever the circumstances - that Keynesian stimulus worked, and that things would've been worse without it?

To me, this is much scarier. Gingrich may be pre-judging the situation, but so is the administration. They've already assumed the success of the stimulus. Gingrich is just assuming its failure.

The only difference is that Gingrich has the administraton's own numbers on to back him up.

Is it fair for the administration to simply assume - whatever the circumstances - that Keynesian stimulus worked, and that things would've been worse without it?

To me, this is much scarier.

Is it fair? No. But is what Gingrich claims fair? No.

Personally, I don't know what the timeline should be in order to gage success or failure. I know that politically, the president has until 2010. I know that politically, Gingrich hopes to convince the American public all is not well and is continuing to get worse by 2010. I know that politically, Gingrich has ambitions for the presidency, so if the 2010 timeline fails to take hold, he's probably holding out hope he can take down the president by 2012. And for me, that is pretty damn scary, that on both sides of the equation the allure of political office is more powerful than the allure of pursuing a nonpartisan truth without the goal of helping or harming either side.

If we look at the administration's baseline scenario, the stimulus has already failed.

If you look at the administration's baseline scenario, the stimulus is off-track. It doesn't mean the plan has failed; it means the plan is possibly flawed, or the situation is worse than expected. Economics isn't a black-white dichotomy. It isn't failure or success, especially at this early juncture. Since there are a multitude of factors, the most we can hope for is a gradient scale. If Gingrich had said that the stimulus has been off base, and that there is therefore a problem with the stimulus plan, I would still disagree with his reason for his conclusion (my conclusions for why the stimulus may have problems is on the other end of the spectrum than Gingrich's assertions), but it wouldn't be an eye-rollingly ridiculous statement.

To claim that the stimulus has failed at this point in time, when the stimulus is part of a long term solution for economic recovery, is an eye-rollingly ridiculous statement. As would be the assertion that the stimulus was a success.

Let me say this: if the stimulus had worked point perfect until this date, if everything had gone exactly the way Obama thought and better, it would be too early to call it a success. So with the opposite being true, it is too early to call the whole thing a failure.

That isn't to say that there isn't some criticism that can be aimed at the Obama Administration. But I've seen nothing where the Obama Administration is claiming that the data is in, and the results are uncategorically marked as a success. They may paint a rosier picture, but they aren't declaring victory yet.

We'll never know what things would've looked like without the stimulus. The administration can now claim success no matter how bad the economy gets.

And unless the economy returns to post WWII numbers, the Republicans can declare that it was a complete failure. It cuts both ways.

The president himself said – without any basis in fact – that the stimulus package “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” And administration officials have said that the stimulus “is succeeding.” I don’t see this as strikingly different from what Gingrich said.

Besides, the administration isn’t taking a wait-and-see approach. They’ve argued at every turn that “things would have been worse without the stimulus.” Since the issue is whether things would have been worse without the stimulus, this basically amounts to saying that the stimulus has already succeeded.

Besides, the administration isn’t taking a wait-and-see approach. They’ve argued at every turn that “things would have been worse without the stimulus.” Since the issue is whether things would have been worse without the stimulus, this basically amounts to saying that the stimulus has already succeeded.

Which is why I said that it cuts both ways, though I see the Obama Administration's (perhaps completely baseless) claims of success in individual areas to be wholly different than declaring a categorical success. Meanwhile, Gingrich has declared a categorical failure, which I see as being not only a statement without merit but also represents a larger issue with the Republican party and their strategy for attacking Obama and Obama's policies. The stimulus may eventually be termed a failure - it may eventually be termed a success. But I don't think we can judge it yet - and this rush to judgement on the conservative side of the isle - on a multitude of issues - just makes the conservative side look not only out of touch but hysterical; and it doesn't reflect too well on Newt either, after his whole "racist Latina" twitter comment.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that the administration is oh so great and wonderful and flawless. I'm not arguing that the administration hasn't made some baseless claims. All I said was that I wouldn't make any claims for or against the success of the stimulus as of yet, and that I thought Newt's grandstanding was a hyperbolic and unnecessary statement and did nothing to support him or the cause he's championing.

The stimulus may eventually be termed a failure - it may eventually be termed a success.

Eventually deemed a "failure" by the administration? They have already taken the line that the recession "would have been worse" without the stimulus. Thus, they've already deemed the stimulus a success, in spite of their earlier econometric projections.

The problem is that there is no way to tell whether the stimulus is a success or a failure -- even over a much longer time horizon -- since the administration's baseline scenario has proven to be so absurdly misstated.

The Obama team is now working backward from our current economic condition to create a new baseline scenario -- one that assumes a large multiplier effect from the stimulus.

There is no substantive difference here between what the Obama administration is doing and what Gingrich did. They're both assuming the long-run impact of the stimulus. And there is no way to prove either of them wrong, since we don't know what the real baseline scenario would have been.

Gingrich just happened to make his assertion at a rally; the administration is making its assertion through press releases.

All I said was that I wouldn't make any claims for or against the success of the stimulus as of yet, and that I thought Newt's grandstanding was a hyperbolic and unnecessary statement and did nothing to support him or the cause he's championing.

I agree that the right wing often comes off as "hysterical," but I don't think this is particularly good example.

The economy is far, far worse than the administration said it would be at this point - even without the stimulus. It's not hysterical or hyperbolic to interpret this as a failure on the part of the administration. I see this as holding the Obama team accountable for its own econometric projections.

Four months is a long time in macroeconomic terms - most recessions only last 8 to 16 months. Plus, the Obama team wasn't sitting idly by during the transition. They had tremendous input even before Obama officially came into office.

I think it takes enormous cognitive dissonance for so many liberals to argue that Bush owned 9/11 because of his failure to deal with al Qaeda in the early months of his administration, but that Obama should now get a pass for his failure to reign in unemployment to the level he said he could at this point.

No; deemed a failure or success by people who have less of a political stake in its success or failure than Gingrich or the Obama Administration. Again, I've said nothing about the Obama Administration. I don't trust the Obama Administration to not make their policies look good. I've seen The West Wing; I own The West Wing. I know what a Press Secretary does.

There is no substantive difference here between what the Obama administration is doing and what Gingrich did. They're both assuming the long-run impact of the stimulus. And there is no way to prove either of them wrong, since we don't know what the real baseline scenario would have been.

There is a substantive difference in that Newt Gingrich said that it was a "failure" - straight out, don't pass Go, don't collect your 200 dollars - and the Obama Administration has not made such a categorical statement of success. And I'm willing to grant that it is in all probability that they can't because the economic news prevents them from doing so - and that they aren't stupid enough or unaware enough to have a "Mission Accomplished" moment. But the truth of the matter is, Gingrich said that the stimulus had 'failed', and that is - for the very reason you're citing - ridiculous.

I think it takes enormous cognitive dissonance for so many liberals to argue that Bush owned 9/11 because of his failure to deal with al Qaeda in the early months of his administration, but that Obama should now get a pass for his failure to reign in unemployment to the level he said he could at this point.

And I think equating the two catastrophes is a little... I'm going to go with 'crass', though I'm not sure that's the exact word or implication I really want there.

From what I can tell, economics is very much like reading tea leaves - or even predicting the weather. It isn't a black and white, "I do this and everything goes back to normal". It isn't a "if we pass this stimulus bill, the job loss rate will halt". Because economics and economic recovery is as much about confidence - consumer confidence, market confidence, producer confidence - as it is about the right medication at the right time. Obama could be doing everything right in terms of textbook economics, but if people are skittish and still refuse to buy anything then there's little he can do.

Also, and as much as I am empathetic to those who have lost their jobs because of the recession (partially, I admit, because I was one of them), over 3,000 people haven't died because of it.

I'm not one who blames Bush for 9/11. I'm not one who blames Bush for continuing to read to an elementary school class. Because seriously, what was the guy really supposed to do? But (and it is a big one), I think there is a huge - HUGE - difference in a president who has been trying to cope with something he sees as a giant clusterfuck of badness and a president who failed to recognize the scope of the threat a terrorist organization posed.

There is no comparison between trying and possibly failing to put the breaks on a downwardly mobile economy, and not escalating precautions due to a credible threat. I'm not saying that Bush should have seen 9/11 coming; hindsight is always 20/20, and I would even go so far as to put some of the failure on Clinton's head. But I do see there being a problem with equating a president who is trying in his situation with a president who by all accounts really didn't.

Plus (and I didn't really mean to write a dissertation here, but you've riled me up), in order to take this view, I think you have to ignore why the lefties believe Bush should own 9/11. It isn't just because Bush failed to see the warning signs, but the way he (and his people) have framed the issue since that day. The idea that we should vote for Bush, because he kept us safe and we can't expect a leftie like John Kerry to do that - after all, he speaks French - upsets the left, because to argue that Bush kept us safe and that liberals can't means you have to ignore 9/11 entirely, along the fact that it happened when Bush was keeping us safe. It is the ire at the argument that Cheney has been making, that his and Bush's policies kept us safe for 8 years - ignoring, again, 9/11's very existence - and proclaiming that if we do X (elect Obama or liberals in general), Y (stop making excuses for torture), and Z (closing Gitmo), we're going to invite another terrorist attack, something Bush and Cheney would never let happen (again, erasing 9/11 from the conversation).

Especially when there is an argument to be made that the very policies Cheney championed are likely to have created more terrorists who now have more of an excuse to attack America, and who will attempt to do so when someone other than Bush and Cheney are in the White House. It makes for an extremely convenient excuse to claim that their tactics worked if you ignore 9/11 and its implications in the whole "kept us safe" meme. It also ignores the fact that Bush and Cheney may have only been able to keep the "Homeland" safe because they provided so many more easy access targets by doing things like invading Iraq and Afghanistan, making it easier to kill Americans without having to worry about the logistics of doing it in America.

I think that predicting economic outcomes can be difficult, but it’s not akin to reading tea leaves. We have sophisticated econometric tools that allow us to model economic behavior and make reasonable predictions through advanced regression analysis.

You’re right that the global economy is a chaotic system, but the atmosphere is also a chaotic system. It’s extremely difficult for our climate models accurately capture the all of the complexity of atmospheric inputs, but I’m sure you’d agree that it’s wrong to equate climatology with “reading tea leaves.”

Intelligence gathering is, likewise, an imperfect science – and every bit as complex and chaotic as macroeconomics or climatology in terms of its data analysis.

President Obama has insisted that the American people hold him accountable for “results.” This means that we can’t simply judge what he does, but whether his policy initiatives are actually achieving what they were intended to achieve. So far, they have failed to achieve what they were intended to achieve – even assuming a huge margin of error – and yet the administration is touting its success, without much qualification. Since the administration dictates the policies and generates the numbers, I think their intellectual dishonesty is scarier than Newt Gingrich’s absolutism. I only brought this up because you attacked Gingrich without any apparent consideration the other side.

I don’t think that the allusion to Bush is unfair. If we’re judging results, then it shouldn’t matter whether the policy initiative in question is responsible or reckless or simply nonexistent. What matters is what happens. And if the administration tells you what is supposed to happen, then you should be able to use that as a benchmark.

If you want to criticize the actions of the Bush administration after 9/11, I’m with you. But that’s a red herring. We’re talking about whether a president can be judged on results so early into his term. Many progressives seemed to think that Bush could be judged after only three months, but do not believe that Obama should be judged after only four months.

BTW, I think progressives absolutely asserted that Bush failed to see the warning signs and implement the appropriate policies in his first three months. This is exactly what Richard Clarke argued, and it became the mantra of the left.

I only brought this up because you attacked Gingrich without any apparent consideration the other side.

I "attacked" Newt Gingrich because his own intellectual dishonesty about matters ranging far and wide makes his very assertion that Obama failed ridiculous. The message may have a reason for being, but the message bearer and how the message is conveyed is just as important. Likewise, having a guy who proclaims he is not "a citizen of the world", having a guy who calls Sotomayor a racist or a "racialist", having a guy who has the history Gingrich has say that the Obama's economic plan has 'failed' is (a) stupid and (b) disingenuous.

You’re right that the global economy is a chaotic system, but the atmosphere is also a chaotic system. It’s extremely difficult for our climate models accurately capture the all of the complexity of atmospheric inputs, but I’m sure you’d agree that it’s wrong to equate climatology with “reading tea leaves.”

As a metaphor? Not entirely, no. But properly predicting the global economy and the effects of any single proposal is made more difficult by having living, breathing people be a part of the equation as well as having political and social ideologies be part of the equation. Economics, if you take out human perception and human bias, may be exactly like climatology. But moreso than climatology (I think), it is subject to the prisms of those who utilize those models. There is a reason why there are so many schools of economics, with entirely different takes on the events at hand. Meanwhile, climatology as a whole may have internal disagreements among the scientists themselves, but the different branches aren't looking at the same data for the same field and getting wildly different results.

Economics is very much like a philosophy in my view. It is useful, it is intriguing, it is even helpful. But it does lend to the metaphor of reading tea leaves for the very fact that if you took a Keynesian, an Austrian, someone from the Chicago School, and a Marxist, they would see entirely different things in the same data.

President Obama has insisted that the American people hold him accountable for “results.” This means that we can’t simply judge what he does, but whether his policy initiatives are actually achieving what they were intended to achieve. So far, they have failed to achieve what they were intended to achieve – even assuming a huge margin of error – and yet the administration is touting its success, without much qualification.

And I'm all for judging the Administration. I said I wasn't prepared to do that yet on the economic side, but you can judge away. Again, my problem with your equating the two - Gingrich and the Administration - is that the Administration may be lying its ass off (and that is indeed a problem), but they are focusing on individual "successes" within the program. Saving or creating however many jobs, for example. Meanwhile, Gingrich has - without laying out the evidence himself - declared the whole thing a failure.

The whole thing may be a failure. But again, messenger problem and a failure of any sort of nuance in its delivery. The whole thing stinks of politics as usual, especially from the very side - if not directly the people - who have been clamoring for the whole thing to fail in the first place.

If we’re judging results, then it shouldn’t matter whether the policy initiative in question is responsible or reckless or simply nonexistent. What matters is what happens. And if the administration tells you what is supposed to happen, then you should be able to use that as a benchmark.

If we're judging why something happens and how it goes about happening, then yeah, I think the policy initiative in question is important. If Iraq had been a raging success and we had been greeted as liberators, the policy initiatives that led us there would still be suspect. If Bush had done everything in his power to prevent a terrorist attack, if he (and Clinton before him) had paid more attention to the briefings about Al Queda, then I don't think the Left would be attacking him and Cheney in the exact same way - except, again, to emphasize how they didn't "keep us safe" as their mantra goes.

We’re talking about whether a president can be judged on results so early into his term. Many progressives seemed to think that Bush could be judged after only three months, but do not believe that Obama should be judged after only four months.

No, you're talking about whether a president can be judged on results so early in his term. I'm talking about whether or not we can judge a complete success or failure of a specific policy this early in its implementation when specific things - like all of the states receiving their initial stimulus boosts - haven't happened yet, along with the ridiculousness of Gingrich being the de facto "let's declare failure" guy. I'm not being Mos Def here. I'm not saying the president cannot or should not be criticized, and I know of very few people (aside from Mos Def) who would argue that he should be.

BTW, I think progressives absolutely asserted that Bush failed to see the warning signs and implement the appropriate policies in his first three months. This is exactly what Richard Clarke argued, and it became the mantra of the left.

Richard Clarke, the guy who wrote the memo that most clearly outlining the threat and whose reputation was impugned by Bush defenders?

Yes, he did. He also worked in the intelligence community for 30 years, and I happen to believe that Bush could have and should have done more in his first 3 months in office in the 'Homeland Security' area. I understand why he didn't, and I don't blame him for the acts of 9/11 or how he handled the immediate aftermath, but you're arguing that not putting any policies in place is equitable to having policies in place that may have flaws. I see a huge difference in the two.

Also, I did not and would not say that there aren't those on the left who feel this way, who lambast Bush and his crew regardless of logistics. What I said was:

It isn't just because Bush failed to see the warning signs

in an acknowledgement that ignoring the warning signs has been a big talking point in the left. But I think you have failed to recognize why a Richard Clarke, why a Keith Olbermann, hell why a Jeff Fecke would rail so hard to stick 9/11 with Bush and his administration. It isn't (just) that they hate the guy and want to make sure everyone realizes he's a bad, bad man. There are underlying reasons that have to do with not allowing the Bush Administration - namely, Cheney - to create an atmosphere where any terrorist attack, a terrorist attack that is statistically likely to occur, will be seen in contrast to the great job he and the Bush Administration did in keeping us safe.

There are different schools of thought in any academic discipline. But macroeconomists don’t really divide themselves into rigid camps. Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini aren’t at odds with Greg Mankiw and Robert Barro. They agree on most things, but they tend to quibble over a few unsettled questions. Macroeconomics is like any other social science – it’s built around consensus. There are standard econometric models which rely on standard assumptions. And while there are some (largely academic) disputes over theory, there is little disagreement over how to actually gather and measure empirical data.

It’s the same thing with medicine. Some pharmacologists may dispute the effectiveness of a certain drug combination or question the methodology used in a certain clinical trial, but these doctors ultimately agree on most things.

I understand the distinction you’re trying to make between the administration and Gingrich, but I don’t there is a profound difference here. Even if I accepted your analysis, I’d still be more concerned about the intellectual dishonesty of a man who’s actually in power than the lunatic ranting of a man who is not currently in power. I like and trust Obama more than I like and trust Gingrich, but I’m much more concerned about Obama’s deception for precisely this reason. People believe the things Obama says because he’s cultivated this post-partisan image, and because he doesn’t engage in the usual kind of histrionics. But he’s still an exceedingly savvy politician with unalterably political motivations.

I’m not impugning Richard Clarke’s credibility or defending the Bush administration. I’m just trying to draw equivalence. I don’t particularly like Bush, and I disagreed with much of what he did. I voted for Obama, and I prefer having him in office. But I do disagree with Obama on some major issues, and those happen to be some of the issue about which his administration has been most intellectually dishonest.

I think Obama is right that – in politics, anyway – results are what matters. Sometimes, leaving the current policy in place produces the best results, and a leader who “stays the course” deserves credit if things go well and scorn if they do not. People love it when politicians do things, but that’s not always the right choice. Bush simply didn’t change the existing policy, and maybe he does deserve scorn for that. But he doesn’t deserve more scorn than he would have received if he’d done something that had no meaningful impact. (In fact, if he had done something and it failed to prevent 9/11, critics would probably have charged that Bush allowed 9/11 to occur by altering the existing policy.)

If Clarke and Olbermann and others are trying to make Bush own 9/11 for the reasons you say (and I believe you’re correct), I think it’s worth pointing out that two wrongs don’t make a right. If Cheney deserves to be vilified, shouldn’t Olbermann be vilified for engaging in the same kind of partisan nonsense? I would have more respect for Olbermann if he circumvented Cheney’s ridiculous argument and simply said, “We have to trust Bush’s good intentions on national security, and we also have to trust Barack Obama’s good intentions on national security. This doesn’t mean that liberals can’t criticize Bush’s policy choices, even while we acknowledge that he genuinely believes he’s protecting us. We can argue that Bush is wrong and that his policies are reckless, but let’s stop assuming the bad faith of the other side.”

If Olbermann ever said anything even close to this, I would pee myself. In fact, I hope that he never moderates his positions, so I can avoid the dry cleaning.

If Cheney deserves to be vilified, shouldn’t Olbermann be vilified for engaging in the same kind of partisan nonsense?

1) I don't think Olbermann thinks the Bush-Cheney policies he has the most problems with - ie, torture of detainees - was done by Bush and Cheney out of the genuine want to protect Americans from harm. I think he believes - mostly because he's said so - that Bush and Cheney were using torture in place of other interrogation techniques that were working in order to manipulate the evidence making a war with Iraq plausible.

2) I disagree with your main point, because I don't think Olbermann mentions 9/11 out of some partisan desire to stick Bush or Cheney with the check (which is where I see many liberals - Michael Moore not withstanding - as being). I think he's genuinely concerned that Cheney is stacking the deck in the event of another terrorist attack on US soil, is genuinely upset at the constant reiteration that Bush and Cheney's policies were what kept us safe for 8 years - when 9/11 happened within that timespan - is genuinely pissed that 9/11 becomes in effect erased by that very statement, and reiterates both the fact that 9/11 occurred and when it occurred to emphasize part of where the Cheney argument is wrong.

There are many, many things Olbermann is hyper partisan about. There are many, many things he actively blames the Bush Administration for. But I have never heard him actively blame the Bush Administration for 9/11; I have only heard him rail against Bush and Cheney both using 9/11 as a device to enact their policies and ignoring when it happened while protesting that they were the only ones who could keep us safe.

And I'm saying that in terms of even just measurement, there is little equivalence to be drawn, based on what kind of occurrence a terrorist attack is and what kind of occurrence an economic recession is.

If you're attacked by terrorists, it can pretty clearly be said that there was a National Intelligence failure somewhere along the line, even if that failure was reasonable and even defensible because of our nation's pursuit of civil and personal liberties.

If the economy doesn't react precisely as one anticipated, it could be that the models one based one's assumptions on were wrong. It could be that your policies made things worse. It could be that you didn't pump enough money into the system. It could be that you shouldn't have pumped any money into the system at all. It could be that you did prevent the economy from getting worse.

Plus, there is the fact that over 3,000 people died on 9/11, and it is my personal version of "___ is as bad as Hitler".

People believe the things Obama says because he’s cultivated this post-partisan image, and because he doesn’t engage in the usual kind of histrionics. But he’s still an exceedingly savvy politician with unalterably political motivations.

And so is Gingrich. My point in this post, as I've said before, isn't that Obama is the greatest thing since Alan Tudyk and that we should all take him at his word. It is that Gingrich and many on the Right have been throwing anything and everything against the wall hoping that something sticks to Obama and that his popularity will wane and that they can have another Republican Revolution. Gingrich may be right in this particular case; I tend to think he is overstating his point - the policy may be underperforming or failing, but I'm doubting that it has 'failed" - but the fact is that a broken clock is still wrong twice a day.

This whole issue with Keith Olbermann is a red herring. I didn’t bring up Olbermann; you cited him as an example of someone who tries to "stick" 9/11 to Bush. Now you’re saying that he doesn’t "actively" try to stick 9/11 to Bush. That's fine. My point doesn't have anything to do with Olbermann in particular.

Even if you don’t think 9/11 is a perfect analogy, there are lots of other incidents of liberals hysterically prejudging the effects of a recently-implemented Bush administration initiative. For example, many progressives insisted that the surge had "failed" only months after it was put into effect. They argued that the "success" of the surge could only be measured according to the administration’s benchmarks, and since those benchmarks weren’t achieved in precisely the way they were explained, the surge had failed. This strikes me as very similar to the argument that Gingrich was making about Obama's plan.

My point is that the rush to judgment is not an exclusively conservative impulse. And it's not anything new. I think conservatives’ recent hysteria has much more to do with Jane's Law than some sort of uniquely entrenched Republican Party psychology, as you seem to be suggesting.

(Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.)

This whole issue with Keith Olbermann is a red herring. I didn’t bring up Olbermann; you cited him as an example of someone who tries to "stick" 9/11 to Bush. Now you’re saying that he doesn’t "actively" try to stick 9/11 to Bush. That's fine. My point doesn't have anything to do with Olbermann in particular.

See, I thought we were having a conversation, and so I was articulating and explaining a point I had previously made and responding to one you had asserted.

I brought up Olbermann as an example of a liberal who pushes for the Bush-Cheney Administration to own 9/11 for the reasons I stated - along with the reasons you stated. But I also wanted to point out that his issues with Bush-Cheney and 9/11 are different than his issues with the Bush-Cheney policies that were ostensibly created in order to further insure our national security. Two different issues, and two different paths of reasoning on Olbermann's part. Which had nothing to do with the argument but stemmed naturally from our conversation.

For example, many progressives insisted that the surge had "failed" only months after it was put into effect. They argued that the "success" of the surge could only be measured according to the administration’s benchmarks, and since those benchmarks weren’t achieved in precisely the way they were explained, the surge had failed. This strikes me as very similar to the argument that Gingrich was making about Obama's plan.

Sure. You know who didn't though? Me. You know who wrote this post? Me.

You know, a majority of the liberals I read, I pay attention to, and I respect are liberals who have reversed their position on the surge, who have admitted they were wrong, and who have repeatedly admitted that they have reversed their position and that they were wrong. If Gingrich does that, then I'll reverse my own opinion of him and his tactics.

And the surge is a much, much better example, I have to say. Partially because it fits all of the requirements necessary (if it had failed, would it have been because it wasn't surgy enough, too surgy? etc.), and because it was a longer process than one Tuesday.

Here, though, I'm going to articulate something that has been bothering me for a bit. And that is that you seem to be arguing against a progressive that isn't me here. You want to argue with me and what I've done and what I think? I'm more than capable of having that fight. But if you want to argue with me about progressives, many of whom I don't know, don't like, and don't respect, then I'm going to have more than a little bit of a problem doing so. Because you're not arguing with me. You're arguing with people who aren't present and seem to be using me as a proxy and placing all of their faults and failures and issues - like the reaction to the Surge and even 9/11 - and putting them on me as if they were my own. They aren't. So pointing out where progressives are hypocritical may make you feel better, but since - at least in this instance - I'm not being hypocritical, I really honestly don't see what your point is.

However, if your point is that I should post more criticism of Obama and his economic policy because Obama is wrong and being deceitful for X,Y, or Z reasons, I'll just say that (1) I do try to write a blog post every day (something I've been failing at miserably lately), (2) I'm open to suggestions for things I have been missing/haven't been covering, and (3) I would be more than willing to host something from you refuting or offering a difference of opinion on any number of subjects.

I will try to offer up some topics in the future. You're right that's it's unfair for me to criticize the balance of your posting without providing any materials of my own. I've definitely done that in the past, and I will try to do better in the future.

But in this instance, I was simply responding to two comments that you made:

[T]he types of attacks coming from the Right and the GOP have been, as of late, at the very least hyperbolic and at some point just complete bullshit. And this is one that strattles that line.

Meanwhile, Gingrich has declared a categorical failure, which I see as being not only a statement without merit but also represents a larger issue with the Republican party and their strategy for attacking Obama and Obama's policies.

I was just trying to say that this isn't an issue with the Republican Party - it's a problem with our political discourse in general. I think Democrats are just as prone to this kind of nonsense as Republicans. The Democrats just happen to be in power, so they've been able to strategically tone down their rhetoric.

But if you have a problem with this kind of rhetoric, it shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's something that happens a lot on both sides.

You seemed to be treating this as some sort of uniquely Republican problem.

Kind of. I never said that the Left and the progressives didn't do this. But I (a) wasn't posting before June of last year (speaking of which, I missed my blogoversary), and (b) I wasn't making some overarching argument about the state of political discourse. Just snarking on Newt.

I don't disagree that this isn't something that is a bipartisan issue, but just because it is a bipartisan issue doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't call it out as it happens on both sides. And the rebuttal, as far as I'm concerned, can't just be "both sides do it", because that's just a kindergarden defense. Just because progressives did it in the past doesn't mean Republicans get a free ride in the present, and just because Republicans are doing it right now doesn't mean progressives and Democrats get a free ride in the future. The systemic problem could be - and probably should be and will be - a whole other post. But here and now, I'm going to roll my eyes at the individual cases as they come along.

BTW, I wasn't ascribing the "liberal" position to you -- I was just trying to draw equivalence between Gingrich's statements and the statements of some progressives.

This, again, if my fault for not being clearer. But, like I said, I do tend to have a problem with the balance of your posting.

For example, you lauded Keith Olbermann for his comments on the Tiller murder. He attacked conservative media for creating an "environment" that encourages right-wing extremism. But if you really agree with him -- if you really think that vitriolic rhetoric is dangerous -- why haven't you been slamming DailyKos, whose bloggers routinely called Bush a Fascist and a murder? Or why not criticize Oblermann for regularly calling O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World" or donning an O'Reilly mask at a rally so that he could give the sieg heil?

I'm not attributing these positions to you, but I am saying that I think you need to be a little more balanced when it comes to stuff like this. That's the only reason I bring "progressives" up.

For example, you lauded Keith Olbermann for his comments on the Tiller murder. He attacked conservative media for creating an "environment" that encourages right-wing extremism. But if you really agree with him -- if you really think that vitriolic rhetoric is dangerous -- why haven't you been slamming DailyKos, whose bloggers routinely called Bush a Fascist and a murder?

For the same reason I didn't individually call out Bill O'Reilly. I don't have the time or inclination to sift through the hate spewed by any one group. I post on stuff as it comes up on my radar, and O'Reilly and Kos don't - because they're crazy.

Part of it is also a position of influence. I may be wrong in my biased thinking that Bill O'Reilly reaches a wider audience and is granted more mainstream acceptance and legitimacy than those at the DailyKos, but I do think that O'Reilly (or Gingrich) has a greater sphere of influence and more respectability than those at the DailyKos.

I've talked about O'Reilly literally 3 times in just over the year I've been blogging. That's out of 434 posts. At least one of those posts was him on The Daily Show, which I do have a tendency to watch. I didn't talk about him just recently when he attacked Joan Walsh, even though I saw a clip, and I didn't talk about him when he shouted down one of my favorite feminists Courtney Martin. But I can point to something Olbermann said on one occasion and say, "Yeah, that sounds about right".

why not criticize Oblermann for regularly calling O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World" or donning an O'Reilly mask at a rally so that he could give the sieg heil?

Because I think giving O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World" moniker is a great deal less radical and troublesome than consistently calling someone "Tiller the Baby Killer" and misrepresenting that person's occupation and the reasons behind why he does what he does for a living. Because the "Worst Person in the World" is on its face a hyperbolic and silly segment that routinely details people doing things like quoting the Declaration of Independence wrong, and because although Olbermann will call O'Reilly out on matters large and small, infantile matters and ones with some actual gravity, he is also incredibly clear on the show that he is opposed to violence against anyone, that he is opposed to harassment of anyone. Meanwhile, the same can't be said for O'Reilly on his program.

Because I didn't know about Olbermann's rally antics. Because as much as I have a fondness for Countdown and what it is trying to do and what I think Olbermann recognizes it is, I don't really care all that much about Olbermann in the off-hours. He's not a guy I feel the need to keep tabs on after hours. He's on my iPod from 7:30 to about 8:15 every morning, and I like his suits. That's about the end of my Olbermann attention.

Because I have a lot of different issues I'm interested in, and interested in writing about. Because I can't keep tabs on what every person I like says, and when they do say something I think is ridiculous, I do try and write something about it. But again, there's only so many hours in the day and I do want to write something more than just takedowns of Olbermann's or O'Reilly's or the DailyKos' idiocies.

I think Bill O’Reilly routinely expresses his strong opposition to any kind of lawless behavior. If O’Reilly is not on your radar, how can you fairly evaluate the differences between The O’Reilly Factor and Countdown with Keith Olbermann?

Olbermann actually did the seig heil on his show a number of times in reference to O’Reilly. I don’t think he’s done it recently, but that’s only because the ADL slammed him for it a couple years back. (Also, I was wrong. He didn’t don the O’Reilly mask at a rally. It was at the Television Critics Association press tour.)

I understand that the “Worst Person” segment is intended to be kind of tongue-in-cheek (although it can still be quite vitriolic). But isn’t Olbermann’s hyperbole also a bit problematic? And aren’t many of Olbermann’s antics similar – if not in degree, at least in tempo – to the antics that you find so appalling when they’re coming from right-wing pundits?

To be honest, I often have trouble figuring out what you’re arguing. For example, in this very discussion, you said:

“My point in this post, as I've said before . . . is that Gingrich and many on the Right have been throwing anything and everything against the wall hoping that something sticks to Obama and that his popularity will wane and that they can have another Republican Revolution.”

You also said that Gingrich’s comment “represents a larger issue with the Republican party and their strategy for attacking Obama and Obama's policies.”

Then, later, you said: “I wasn't making some overarching argument about the state of political discourse. Just snarking on Newt.”

I understand that you have a perspective, and I’m not expecting you to constantly go out of your way to be fair and balanced, but – at the very least – I should be able to inject what I perceive as some balance into the comments section, shouldn’t I?

You were kind enough to say that: a) you’re open to suggestions for things you haven't been covering, and b) you would be willing to host something from me offering a difference of opinion on any number of subjects.

But it seems like when I offer up what I see as suggestions on things that you haven’t been covering – or offer up some reasons why I think a particular post was a bit unbalanced – you insist that I’m using you as a “proxy” to attack progressive ideas that you don’t endorse. Like I said, I’m not trying to ascribe any ideas to you. I’m usually trying to do what you said you seem to want me to do.

Whatever I’m doing, it clearly doesn’t come off the way I intend it. There is something that I need to do better if you’re continually interpreting my comments as attributing false positions to you.

There’s a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication here. Maybe it’s time for counseling? : )

Then, later, you said: “I wasn't making some overarching argument about the state of political discourse. Just snarking on Newt.”

I think I can mean both things. If you're talking about what I was saying in this particular post, it was snarking on Newt. If you are asking for clarification of a point I've made in the course of a discussion, then my focus shifts a bit to what you want to discuss.

you insist that I’m using you as a “proxy” to attack progressive ideas that you don’t endorse.

Not progressive ideas - progressives who have done things and said things you don't agree with. You keep pointing out that progressives suck too - which is an odd point to make because I'm not them and they're not me, and because just because progressives aren't devoid of fault doesn't mean I can't criticize conservatives and Republicans for engaging in that same behavior.

My problem with your comments on this particular post - which is different than some other problems I've had in the past, so maybe we're evolving - is that you keep arguing with me and my point by bringing up the fault of "progressives". That's like criticizing my feminism based on what "feminists" have said. Feminism is a big tent. Progressivism is a big tent. And sometimes the best of those in those camps don't live up to the expectations and philosophies of those camps. That's my problem, currently at this time and in this post.

It isn't the hugest problem we've ever had, but I can't be and I won't be defending people's actions who aren't me when we're discussing progressives. Because you're bound to find someone who's fucked up somewhere along the line.

I'll get into the Olbermann thing later, because I've got to get to a Roller Derby thing with Jess. But I'll say this: I used to be a viewer of The O'Reilly Factor. I've read a couple of his books. I've seen clips of the show. Just like I used to listen to Laura Schlessinger's radio program (under duress - it was where I used to work), and listened to Rush Limbaugh. I can describe in detail the differences I see in O'Reilly and Olbermann - and one of them is O'Reilly using his bully pulpit to stalk people he doesn't agree with and doing ambush interviews while hypocritically railing against such a thing when the same tactics are used against people he likes. He is a bully in a way I don't find Olbermann to be. But again, longer discussion.

I think Bill O’Reilly routinely expresses his strong opposition to any kind of lawless behavior.

Except for in the case of rape. If you're raped, then Bill O'Reilly will talk about what you were wearing that night, how you're a pinhead, that you probably were having more fun with your abductor than you thought you'd have with your parents, etc, etc, etc.

But isn’t Olbermann’s hyperbole also a bit problematic?

Yes and no. There's good and bad hyperbole in editorial commenting, and Olbermann engages in both. There are other things about Olbermann I find more problematic - his focus on Rush Limbaugh's weight absent any context where such a discussion could be in any way relevant is one of those things - but some of his hyperbolic statements, some of his conflations, are problematic. But the issue I have isn't with hyperbole. If you watch Olbermann or O'Reilly, you pretty much sign up for hyperbole. The difference between the two for me is that oftentimes, it's clear that Olbermann knows he's being hyperbolic and intends to be hyperbolic. There are times when he doesn't seem to recognize the hyperbolic nature of his freak outs, and those are the times I roll my eyes and think he's unhinged.

The other thing is that Olbermann doesn't pretend to be "fair and balanced". Fox News - and O'Reilly - does. Olbermann doesn't seem to believe his is an objective position, that he is free from bias and preference and from the way experience has shaped and warped him. O'Reilly does actually tend to, and tends to engage in helpfully pointing out others' prisms while ignoring his own.

And aren’t many of Olbermann’s antics similar – if not in degree, at least in tempo – to the antics that you find so appalling when they’re coming from right-wing pundits?

I'm not appalled by the tempo of the antics of right-wing pundits; generally when I'm appalled, I'm appalled by the degree of the antics, and what those antics contain.

If the argument is: Does Olbermann engage in the same kind of tactics a Bill O'Reilly engages in, then the answer is that his antics do overlap with some of those right-wing pundits' antics. If the argument is: Does Olbermann engage in the same sort of behavior behind the antics that so appalls me, then the answer is no.

One thing is that there are specific issues I have with right-wing pundits - hyperbole in an of itself is not among those issues. Where that hyperbole goes and what effects it may have could be; but in general, if I find O'Reilly offensive it isn't that he's being hyperbolic as much as the way he's hyperbolic - where facts cease to matter, human beings cease to matter, and all that matters is that he, O'Reilly, can get Wrath of God angry. I know people have problems with Olbermann not inviting people he doesn't agree with or who don't hold his political views on certain issues on the show, and to a point I do as well. But I'd rather have two people like-minded people engaged in a respectful conversation where there are disagreements and caveats than the (un)righteous and fact-adverse beat downs O'Reilly likes to put on.

And I don't think you can remove degree from the antics in order to make the two more equitable.

Because degree matters. Because I'm more than willing to have a channel where people of a certain political bent can gather 'round and disseminate about the world from their particular viewpoint. I've got one of those channels - it's called PBS. Getting upset, getting impassioned, getting worked up in the course of ideology doesn't bother me. Having conservatives (or liberals) say stupid things on air because they have to fill 5 hours a week doesn't really bother me. I think there are bad ways to do it (Glenn Beck) and better ways to do it (Rachel Maddow) - but overall, my problem isn't with the punditry's habit of going crazy but the way that craziness is expressed. Which is a matter of degrees. If you're misrepresenting facts, if you're perpetuating dangerous ideas - like Birther theories regarding Obama's birth certificate - then that's going to get my dander up in a way crying on air about fearing for one's country isn't. One is concerning because of other factors, and one is just pathetic.

So, calling someone Tiller the Baby Killer and implying that person engages in aborting fetuses for funsies when you know that doctors who provide abortions have been and continue to be targeted for harassment and violence, when you know that doctor in particular has already been shot, is the reason to get upset and to be appalled. The reason isn't how that misinformation is disseminated. And because of that, they're entirely different beasts.

I feel like this particular comment deserves more attention than I gave it in my frantic post before I left work, so I'm doing it again now:

But it seems like when I offer up what I see as suggestions on things that you haven’t been covering – or offer up some reasons why I think a particular post was a bit unbalanced – you insist that I’m using you as a “proxy” to attack progressive ideas that you don’t endorse.

When you offer up suggestions on why you think my post is 'unbalanced', like asserting that the Obama Administration is guilty of the same thing I'm lambasting Newt for, that makes sense to me. I may disagree with you in terms of nuance, but it is a fair assessment of the post. I have no problem with that; in fact, I appreciate it.

My concern is when I'm viewed by you as being unbalanced because others who may be of my particular political ilk are unbalanced or have done wrong. I'm not sure if that is what you meant when you were talking about what liberals and progressives did in regard to the surge or 9/11. In fact, I'm pretty sure you weren't, but now I'm kind of worried about that.

What I am sure you did in talking about liberal/progressive response to the surge or 9/11 in trying to draw an equivalence is create an unwinnable situation for me in terms of posting. If I have to make mention or write about all of the crap a lot of people on my side have done over the course of even the past 6 months in order to create a balance when I criticize an action taken by whoever the other side is, then I'll never get any posting done. It would be like if I had to write a disclaimer on every post: "My side has fucked up too". Unless I'm the one who fucked up, I can't really do much about those other people, you know?

Plus, and I was probably unclear, I don't think you're using me as a proxy to attack progressive ideas. I think I already wrote about this (and God knows if you're still reading now), I think you're arguing with progressive - possibly specific ones - and their mistakes through me. Which in all honesty doesn't bother me; I just can't do it. There's no way I can have that discussion, because I don't know what there is to say about it.

I agree with you that the Left has engaged in the same tactics and that it is a systemic problem. My point is that particular meta issue shouldn't stop us from calling out the micro embodiments of that issue as they occur - and there is no justification in "the other guys do it too".

I think there were really two separate discussions here -- from my perspective, anyway.

First, I brought up the Obama administration's deception and in relation to Gingrich's comments, and we went back and forth. That was a much more narrowly focused discussion.

Then, you made what I felt was a much a broader statement about the conservatives' political tactics, and I felt the need to offer some perspecitve -- not to ascribe the "liberal" position to you, but simply to say, "Hey, this isn't just a conservative thing -- it's something that progressive do, too."

Somewhere in there we also started discussing Olbermann and O'Reilly.

I understand your point about Olbermann's antics being less worrisome than O'Reilly's antics.(Although, I would probably say that there is less of a difference between these two men than you'd be willing to concede.)

What I really don't understand is why your posts about Olbermann are always pouring with affection. Even if he is significantly better than O'Reilly, I still don't see how he can be perceived as anything more than a partisan hack. His intense self-righteous and outrageously hyperbolic rhetoric dampen our political dialogue. And he still engages in all sorts of unfair attacks -- continually comparing right-wing pundits to Fascists and tacitly endorsing at least some kinds of left-wing extremism.

I don't watch Olbermann as frequently as I used to, but the last show I saw he and Janeane Garofalo were talking about how all of the people attending the Tea Parties were "a bunch of racists" -- and that statement was completely unqualified. This strikes me as some pretty dangerous rhetoric, too.

Again, I'm not attributing this viewpoint to you; I'm just saying I don't understand why you're always gushing over this guy.

What I really don't understand is why your posts about Olbermann are always pouring with affection.

Oh, come now! Not all of them! I only always gush over Chris Hayes.

And the posts about Olbermann are pouring with affection because I do genuinely like the guy - not enough to read up on him and his doings or to watch football when he's off doing that, but in general I think he's a good guy. I can see where he's fucked up and where he's part of the problem, but generally I think he's a guy with good intentions and who often has a good point. Oftentimes, his points sound like they come out of crazy tinfoil hat land, but I'd say the other 50% of the time they're actually thoughtful, articulate, and based in a humanism I relate to.

He's inclined - as many of us are - to lean further into tinfoil hat land when his guests are of that variety, and that Janeane Garofalo interview (both of them that I've seen) definitely falls into that camp. But he also seems to lean more toward sanity when his guests do. Which is one of the reasons I like Chris Hayes and Eugene Robinson and Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Lacewell on with him; they tend to keep him on the sane side of the liberal fence.

(As an aside, though, while I feel Garofalo and Olbermann were being lunatics, there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that Tea Parties and the like have started to attract the less than savory parts of the conservative movement - like racists. The people who hold up disgusting signs and stick Obama stickers on monkey dolls, who don't believe Obama can be president, who don't believe Obama is a US citizen, who join the movement probably because they don't like taxes but also because it was a venue with which they could spread their vitriol. There were plenty of dog whistles going off there, and I think there is a danger in Olbermann or his guests being so far out there that we ignore legitimate - if toned down - aspects of their rantings.)

I'm just saying I don't understand why you're always gushing over this guy.

If nothing else, never be surprised at how a well-dressed man can affect me.

Seriously, look at the liberals on PBS, especially on Newshour. Those are people who don't know how to dress. Keith Olbermann's suits are sweet. I've often said that if a guy asked me how he should dress, I'd send him to Carson Kressley first, but then I'd make him watch Countdown. All the guys on there normally look so snazzy.

"[T]here is a lot of evidence to support the claim that Tea Parties and the like have started to attract the less than savory parts of the conservative movement - like racists. The people who hold up disgusting signs and stick Obama stickers on monkey dolls, who don't believe Obama can be president, who don't believe Obama is a US citizen . . ."

I understand that there were some people at the Tea Parties with racist signs and some people chanting racist slogans -- but to smear an entire movement? There were tens of thousands of people at these protests. The images that Olbermann showed were images from a Huffington Post article called something like: "The the Ten WORST Signs Seen at the Tea Parties." Olbermann was presenting them as if they were representative of the entire crowd.

The irony is that Janeane Garofalo has consistently defended the antiwar movement -- even when there were violent protests at the RNC, even when some protestors held up "Bushiter" signs, even when some in the antiwar camp produced racist images of Condoleezza Rice. She said that conservatives point to these things in order to distracting us from legitimate "dissent." And she's right -- the actions of a few members shouldn't be used to defame the entire movement or to dismiss that movement's very legitimate complaints.

Tweets

About Me

I'm a pop culture junkie with an affinity for but not limited to: politics, feminism, fiction, nonfiction, women's college basketball, movies, music, and television. I am a devotee of Joss Whedon and Aaron Sorkin, and I read Newsweek religiously. And I hold opinions on all of those things, which I will be writing down frequently.